You can join the ongoing discussion about this on Bratz World
http://www.bratzworld.tv

In response to a post questioning whether emotions clouded our judgment on Mattel's actions. Certainly there are "emotions" but the facts no matter what anyone feels are clear to me, this was not a fair trial in any sense.

Why this ruling is wrong IMO

Hey everybody I just got home and I saw a message about the trial and
I just wanted to post why I believe this case is SO wrong and not
legally correct.

Sure Carter did a very bad thing being so casual with who and what he
did once he began the Bratz line but:

The judge/jury did not give Mattel the first four drawings he did- and
that would be when the line was created so what is the point of all of
this legal wrangling?

The judge has made disparaging remarks from the beginning that makes
it clear he did not like MGA, Carter or this case because he dealt
with life and death issues in other cases and this was just property-
he was not unbiased.

The jury had a racist in their midst in the first phase of the trial
and only one person came forward. The judge has written comments
trying to imply the whole jury came forward but they did not until
confronted when the one person came forward. He seemed to think a
majority of a jury being okay with going forward with a juror who said
that Iranian people were dishonest thieves didn't mean the jury was
not good. The one racist was removed but the rest of the jury went
forward to the rest of the case. And remember only one of them had
come forward when the racist made those remarks.

The jury awarded a low amount compared to what Mattel wanted and said
they didn't believe MGA should have to be penalized for later lines
besides the first and even the judge said the value of the dolls was
due to MGA's work on them.

Now he is suddenly taking ALL of the lines and MGA's work away? Just
because he is a judge and an adult doesn't mean he was unbiased in
this case and the jury having a racist with them? With these
conditions does this seem like a fair trial?

The first drawings Carter ever did when he created the line were NOT
among the drawings given to Mattel- and wouldn't that be the moment
they were created?

Whatever work he did later at Mattel- whatever dolls might have been
affected by that later work, sure he messed up and Mattel might get a
royalty from those dolls but now to say the WHOLE LINE is theirs?
There is something seriously messed up about this whole trial and this
is just looking at facts, not emotions.
sfb

His is an all-American toy story
Stefano Paltera / For The Times

HUMBLE BEGINNINGS: Isaac Larian, chief executive of Van Nuys-based MGA Entertainment, came to the States in 1971 at the age of 17. “The first great meal I had in the U.S. was liver and onions at Spires,” he says of the Lawndale eatery he had worked for.

Isaac Larian, who emigrated from Iran as a youth, built Bratz doll maker MGA Entertainment into a major force in the toy industry.
By David Colker, Los Angeles Times Staff Writer
July 27, 2008
Less than a couple of hours after a resounding defeat in federal court, Isaac Larian -- the blustery chief executive of MGA Entertainment Inc. -- sounded like a man getting into the ring, not one who had just gotten a legal beating.

"They are so dishonest," he said of archrival Mattel Inc., which had just won a jury victory in a long-fought copyright infringement lawsuit that could cost MGA more than $1 billion.

Playing for keeps
"Their lawyers are dishonest," said Larian, who sees the case as a vendetta by Mattel against him.

It wasn't an unexpected reaction from the feisty Larian, 54, who built his Van Nuys-based company into one of the major forces in the toy industry from a humble enterprise so shaky that it filed for bankruptcy protection in 1997.

That success was mostly built on one product -- the Bratz dolls that MGA debuted in 2001. Beloved by preteen girls, the hip dolls with tight outfits and bare midriffs that exuded street smarts (uncomfortably close to street walker, according to some angered parents) soon made MGA anywhere from $500 million to $2 billion a year, depending on which analyst was doing the estimating.

But July 17, after six weeks of testimony, the jury found that the Bratz dolls were created by a designer who had been working at Mattel under an exclusivity contract. The jury also found that MGA and Larian aided the breaking of that contract.

The battle, and courtroom fireworks the trial generated, are far from over. On Friday, during the damages phase of the trial, it was revealed that one of the jurors had made slurs about the ethnicity of Larian, who was born in Iran. The juror was removed and MGA asked for a mistrial to be declared. The matter will be taken up in court Aug. 4.

A mistrial would wipe out Mattel's victory, justifying Larian's refusal to enter settlement talks with Mattel.

"I need to sleep good at night," he said. "I can't be in bed with them."

Strolling confidently through the courthouse hallways during breaks, Larian was always nattily dressed in well-tailored suits, and always willing to give a comment to reporters.

During noon breaks, he was often seen carrying a Trader Joe's bag that didn't go with the suits. As he entered the private sanctuary of his lawyers' workroom one day he explained, "It's my lunch. My wife is very good to me."

In a recent interview, he traced his feistiness and devotion to family to his childhood.

"It goes back to my upbringing," he said. "I grew up in Iran, being Jewish."

His family was close and he learned the value of work from his parents, who owned a retail fabric store. "My parents were not wealthy," he said, "and I had to work after school at the shop."

Larian came to the U.S. in 1971 at the age of 17. He said he had only $750 and got a job as a dishwasher at Spires coffee shop in Lawndale.

"The first great meal I had in the U.S. was liver and onions at Spires," he said.

He worked the night shift, eventually getting promoted to busboy and going to school during the day at Cal State Los Angeles as an engineering major. He planned on returning to Iran after graduating.

"The goal was to go back and get engineering work on the infrastructure," Larian said.

But by the time he made it back to Iran in 1979, the revolution had created an Islamic republic.

"Being Jewish, I didn't see that as a place where I could live," Larian said. He headed back to the U.S. and with his brother, Farhad, began an import business called Surprise Gift Wagon. He never worked as an engineer.

"My kids ask about that," Larian said. "I tell them, 'In engineering they teach you how to solve problems and in business you have to solve problems every day.' "

They imported brass giftware and other items. In 1987 they formed a division called Micro Games of America (later MGA) to distribute a Nintendo hand-held game machine called the Game & Watch. It couldn't hold more than one game at a time, and after an initial surge in sales, the U.S. venture faltered.

"I had so much inventory and nobody wanted to buy," Larian said. "It was a disaster for me that taught me a big lesson. In the toy business, kids are always looking for fresh, new products."

Nintendo debuted the legendary Game Boy in 1989, but the Larians didn't get a piece of that. The brothers were also feuding over the operation of the business, and in 2000 Farhad sold his portion to Isaac for about $9 million.

Farhad later sued his brother, claiming that Isaac had hidden a $3-billion distribution deal from him that greatly enhanced the value of their company. The suit eventually was withdrawn.

Larian said the relationship between him and his brother is civil but not healed. To explain, he Americanized a Persian proverb: "They say if you drop and break an expensive vase, you can Crazy Glue it back together. But there is always a mark there."

The court battle with Mattel is the biggest challenge yet to his business. But even in the midst of this trial, it's clear that he enjoys looking back on what he sees as his all-American story.

"A few years ago I took my kids back to the coffee shop where I worked," Larian said. "We sat down and ate."

As far as he could tell, none of the people who had been there in his dishwashing and busboy days was still at the restaurant. But there was a reminder of those times.

"Liver and onions," he said. "It was still on the menu."
Source!